Submitted by quinntronix t3_10aumg4 in RhodeIsland
Comments
dishwashersafe t1_j46o77f wrote
Thanks for the most rational argument against this I've heard so far. I'm not familiar with the 195 commission guidelines or how they were arrived at, but I'd like to learn more. My pet peeve is all the zoning restrictions and yet every project seems to get a variance. Either decide the zoning should change, or follow the rules!
brick1972 t1_j46m8zj wrote
There is also the parking lot across from the civic center that was supposed to be a tower (former public safety complex).
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j46n13o wrote
And while it may be too close to 95 for Mr. Fane, that one the city presumably owns.
Dextrous456 t1_j4b2fcs wrote
It's owned by the Procaccianti company, the same one that demolished the police and fire building.
smokejaguar t1_j49pqxy wrote
>The wise answer which NO ONE WILL DO - is trade this parcel for the one behind Turks Head, or the parking lot at Westminster and Union, or Westminster and Snow (you know, where all the high rises, restaurants and other urban amenities already exist) and have him build it there.🤷🏼♂️
Sounds like you put more thought into this than the state did. When I seize power and become dictator, you'll head up the ministry of urban development.
karnim t1_j46j8lu wrote
More housing is good, even if it's luxury housing. Would it be better if it was for the average person? Sure, but it's still better than nothing at all. I live in one of those "luxury" mill apartments, and the place is packed full, not sitting with empty units. I tried to move to a cheaper unit in the building, and there was only one unit open, out of hundreds of units. We need more housing, especially if you want things to get cheaper. Literally anything that isn't more single-family housing.
If the rich-ass renters want to move into a $4k/mo apartment, let them. It means they are moving out of a $2k/mo apartment which could be filled by someone with a lower income.
dishwashersafe t1_j46niq3 wrote
Spot on. People don't seem to understand that any new housing is good for affordability.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46uzpg wrote
"But I can't afford this housing"
kayakyakr t1_j46l1fz wrote
This guy urbanists.
This is good how it's supposed to work. If you claim to be a capitalist, then the market will take care of the pricing. Yes, we need more affordable units, but blocking housing projects is not going to make them appear suddenly
barsoapguy t1_j47c1jf wrote
Less housing just means that anyone who already owns a home is sitting pretty.
The less supply that gets filled the higher remaining property prices will be.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46uwmh wrote
Exactly. People skip past this because 1 single building doesn't magically solve all of the problems or something. It's so short-sighted cause this problem is going to continue to get worse.
whatsaphoto t1_j47jk4c wrote
> If the rich-ass renters want to move into a $4k/mo apartment, let them. It means they are moving out of a $2k/mo apartment which could be filled by someone with a lower income.
The sooner we all get past the initial sting of "Luxury condo coming soon!" and realize that this is exactly what's going to happen I think we'll all come to an agreement that this is eventually going to be a good thing.
closerocks t1_j486asw wrote
If someone moves into a $4K apartment, it doesn't make the $2K apartment more affordable. It only makes it available which means someone living with roommates in a $4K apartment will probably move into the $2K apartment by themselves.
What's also likely to happen is a landlord will see that somebody moved to a higher price department, do a spiff and spit job to fancy up their apartment then charge $3.5 K.
Building more expensive condos will not do anything to drop the cost of an apartment. It only free up lower-priced properties which are still too expensive.
fishythepete t1_j48h3qs wrote
You or literally any competent economist, who to believe…?
Beezlegrunk t1_j4a91hl wrote
TLDon’tR: “When rich people move into even more expensive apartments than they live in now, people who couldn’t afford their old apartments somehow immediately become richer and are magically able to replace those rich people in their old apartments”
Otherwise known as “high-school economics theory masquerading as actual analysis, while ignoring cities in which lots of luxury housing was built but where housing never got any cheaper” …
sailri t1_j4bd2ib wrote
As opposed to the "let's prevent housing developers from building any housing at all?" regardless of the eventual clientele? Yeah that's a great theory.
How much money does a developer have to spend to have to build new places in RI renting for $500-1200? Figure that out and then ask "well if it costs that much why would they do it?
In this case the answer is this guy is ready to spend money to build a building. There are no/few others that are willing.
Beezlegrunk t1_j4bxgqm wrote
Please point to all of the comments (or even one) in which people said, "let's prevent housing developers from building any housing at all" — we’ll wait.
>How much money does a developer have to spend to have to build new places in RI renting for $500-1200? Figure that out and then ask "well if it costs that much why would they do it?”
You mean you don’t actually know, but you’re sure it’s too much to do. Why haven’t you figured it out? It would make your argument more compelling if it were actually substantiated, instead of just being whatever Tucker Carlson says.
>this guy is ready to spend money to build a building. There are no/few others that are willing.
We don’t need the building he wants to build for his own personal profit — does that part matter at all?
What if he wanted to build a 300-story building, do we have to allow that because he’s “ready to spend money”?
tru3no t1_j46avst wrote
Let it happen and stop trying to withhold progress and development with all the redlines with the bs of the historical community..
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j47o7vi wrote
To be accurate, one of the main reasons people want to live in Providence is because of the historical BS.
So, we probably should pay attention to it.
gusterfell t1_j47t7r2 wrote
Agreed, but this tower does nothing to harm the historical BS. It's being built on a vacant lot that historically was a highway underpass.
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j48ecfx wrote
The Jewelry District Association, and the PPS both disagree with your analysis.
Regardless of what you or I think, Providence is in part nicer now - and desired by developers - because of the efforts of the PPS, so if they are vocal about its deleterious effects than we should listen.
crimepais t1_j49ufse wrote
No offense, but I moved from Chicago and nothing about this area is unique or worth preserving. Providence needs to modernize badly and people worried about brown sites next to an oil depot aren't going to be attracting outside investment and people.
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j49vq7v wrote
I’m just a dude on the internet, you should tell PPS they’re wrong, not me.
Of course the way the timeline has gone, the chances he has the investors to get it done at all are pretty slim.
crimepais t1_j49w9bp wrote
Agreed this is not going through either way. Just annoying how anti growth this area is.
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j49yho1 wrote
Not sure how long you’ve been here, but the construction in the 195 lands for the last 4-5 years has been explosive.
We are not anti growth.
We did however sign onto this 195 relocation project with the clear provision this area would remain mid rises to keep in line with the existing mill/office structures - and not only did us citizens sign on to that, so did all the developers that have already built whose values will be negatively impacted.
You really can be both pro-growth, and have an expectation that the state live up to its promises.
Dextrous456 t1_j4b35vb wrote
PPS is not anti growth. pay attention. They support tall buildings...in downtown and near 95, where community planning and professional planning efforts over the last few decades have said they should go, for a harmonious cityscape.
[deleted] t1_j46nbpo wrote
The same ones who call this an eyesore would cry if they took down that nasty bridge that’s stuck up.
crimepais t1_j49uzcl wrote
Exactly, never seen a place where people thought a stuck burned out bridge was a cultural site.
Dextrous456 t1_j4b39zf wrote
You probably don't like the way some steel cities have preserved their rusted out factories either, but those cities make a lot of hay with them.
[deleted] t1_j47niix wrote
[deleted]
waninggib t1_j46j3ct wrote
Can you provide a little insight as to how building a large tower full of luxury housing is considered progress for the city? I think I’m missing something here.
wise_garden_hermit t1_j46p5gg wrote
Luxury buildings like this are a fishtank for rich people. They would live in Providence anyway. With this tower, they will be contained in one spot and not compete for lower tier housing.
waninggib t1_j46pvad wrote
Assuming what you’re saying is rooted in actual data and fact and not just an overall wild assumption, how exactly is that progress for this city? What does having another place for rich people to live do to better the lives of everyone else?
wise_garden_hermit t1_j46r9no wrote
> Assuming what you’re saying is rooted in actual data
Yes. As [1] plenty [2] of [3] research [4] shows [5]. In terms of data & research, this is uncontroversial.
> how exactly is that progress?
Small steps. We need more housing. This is housing, however imperfect. I would appreciate more housing, be it constructed by the government or private development, towers or duplexes, apartment buildings or townhomes, I don't really care. There is a housing crisis. Let the housing get built.
waninggib t1_j46ttme wrote
None of the links you provided support your assertion that the rich people in the city will live here and no longer compete for housing with everyone else.
wise_garden_hermit t1_j46uf4r wrote
Each of those links support the theory that market rate housing (what is usually termed luxury housing as a marketing ploy) leads to reductions in rent in the nearby neighborhood. The leading theory on why this empirical effect exists is that it increases slack in lower tiers of the housing market. Please, read the discussion section of these papers for further mention of this and other potential explanations. Or, better yet, search the literature yourself.
What is your theory of housing here? Do you think that this tower will attract people to Providence who otherwise would not have moved here? Where would wealthy people live otherwise?
waninggib t1_j46uu1c wrote
I think this tower is not the answer to the housing crisis in Providence and I think it’s naive to believe it is. Luxury development is not the solution in any of the links you provided. We don’t need this, we need our tax dollars to be invested in making more affordable housing, not to support the desire for a private developer to gain more wealth and power.
wise_garden_hermit t1_j46vq1x wrote
I also don't think it's the solution. But I do think its new housing. And new housing is a solution, as evidenced by the existing literature.
Do I like this tower? No. Does it provide something that the city, state, and region needs? Yes. Could affordable housing be better? Sure. But the choice is not between this tower and affordable housing. The choice is between this tower and nothing.
We have barely built any housing in decades. It's a crisis. We are losing our privilege to be picky about what does get build. Just build the damn tower. We can build affordable hosing too. Or more market rate housing. Just build something.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48hn22 wrote
>I think this tower is not the answer to the housing crisis in Providence and I think it’s naive to believe it is
Nobody has ever or will ever claim it is. But there's no solution that can skip past the "build a shit ton of new housing fast" part of the equation.
​
> We don’t need this, we need our tax dollars to be invested in making more affordable housing, not to support the desire for a private developer to gain more wealth and power.
Would your opinion on this be the same if there were zero tax dollars going towards it? Cause, boy, do I have a fucking newsflash for you
crimepais t1_j49vbhm wrote
Wealthy people have money, money gets spent on service industries like restaurants and result in a higher income tax base.
tru3no t1_j470z0b wrote
if building new is not progressing on Idk what progress is I'm so sorry.. we all should be still Leaving on tree branches like monkeys
Man_of_Aluminum t1_j46dxyl wrote
My opinion is we should be shitting out projects of this size whenever and wherever possible and if I hear one more NIMBY dipshit bitch about "neighborhood character" or "keep [x major city] under [x feet]" to hold up any and all development I'm going to blow a gasket.
commandantskip t1_j46xr7l wrote
Fucking thank you!
CocaineSlippers t1_j46j1f0 wrote
preach
Wide_Television_7074 t1_j496ycr wrote
truth! build a thousand of these
Rhody05 t1_j4g7pjr wrote
The amount of pushback on any project in Providence is absurd. Some of the opinions are justified but it’s held back this city for too long.
[deleted] t1_j46ecjz wrote
[deleted]
GotenRocko t1_j46gi9j wrote
The NIMBYism in this case is mostly coming from other developers. They want to protect their luxury apartments value by keeping the supply low.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46hba4 wrote
I dunno, I think Mr. Aluminum is just someone who recognizes the scope of the problem and that path to a solution. Demand has far outpaced supply for housing.
Opposing things like this will only work to make housing continue to cost more.
jimmygreen717 t1_j46cgpq wrote
There's a nation wide housing crisis, as the population grows but the number of individuals per household is dropping. The amount of jobs and tax dollars this will generate for the state is a good thing. Not to mention allowing Providence to catch up to other modern cities. RI has been behind the ball on a lot of things (casinos, legalizing marijuana), so I'd like to see progress
TheSausageFattener t1_j46nhco wrote
Providence is behind the ball because it hasnt developed a strong economic niche outside of being a satellite within the Boston Urban Area. A lot of its growth is the result of spillovers from Bostons strong growth and housing boom.
The tower doesnt change that dynamic to be more sustainable for RI, it just doubles down. When I-195 was moved to make way for that parcel the rationale was that the land would be used to attract new business opportunities and create an incubator for a stronger biotech niche. The 20 years of development failure since then have at best yielded 5 over 1s and a Trader Joes, or expanded/new office space for existing economic fixtures (Brown). Its better than nothing, but not good considering thats the scale of development that some suburbs achieve in their downtowns. Fane reads like a wild moonshot to try and get something to be proud of.
Rhode Islands state officials just suck at development, or perhaps they think its easy. 195 reads to me like somebody trying to emulate the aesthetics of a successful economic development strategy without understanding how to get there. Youre right that RI consistently, regularly falls behind at every turn. Quonset, Tiverton, and Newport are all cases where a casino venture could have been well executed, but that ship sailed. Hell, this parcel would have been great for a casino if Encore hadn’t been built.
In my opinion a good place to start smashing zoning and developing is Warwick and Pawtucket. Jefferson Boulevard is full of wasted potential and its a shame that its train station is basically going to waste.
barsoapguy t1_j47cbk9 wrote
Casinos are awful they produce nothing of value to society, we are better off without them.
Just places where poor people who are desperate and bad at math can lose their money.
TheSausageFattener t1_j47wr3h wrote
From an ethical standpoint I agree. I don't think a casino alone necessarily gives a state a real competitive edge. I've been to some miserable towns whose sole enterprise is an enormous towering casino and its sad. Niagara NY isn't exactly fun.
From an economic standpoint, Rhode Island's economy is so heavily dependent on tourism and the service industry that it could use anything that helps to draw more foot traffic downtown, including in the off season. It may help to complement existing strengths Providence has with its music, arts, and food scene. Accessibility is another major factor. RI's three main casinos are either closed (Newport Grand), undersized (Tiverton), or they're Twin River which is like a "local compromise" you head to instead of the larger regional attractions of Foxwoods, Mohegan, and Encore Boston Harbor. Quonset was a bit of a shame because its well poised to leverage ferry service to the Vineyard, Newport, and Providence and there was an abundance of available open parcels. They're now parking lots, solar farms, or storage areas with scattered manufacturing facilities - and GDEB and Toray provide good jobs - but again it could have been a bit more strategically used.
Trust me, I'd rather have a company like Samsonite set up offices. Hell, I'd even compromise with Hasbro moving downtown. But, they aren't. The Superman building can't even get going with a tenant thanks to its clown of an owner.
Edit: BTW most of my blame here is laid squarely at the state for not lighting a fire under the asses of communities outside of Providence, and also Providence, to upzone or engage in some more conscientious regional planning. It's a small state. It should not be this cumbersome.
quinntronix OP t1_j46cy1z wrote
This project is for luxury housing, not affordable housing (there’s no shortage of luxury condos). The project and developers are probably getting away tax free for decades like most developers in town. In 5-10 years the people who live there will pay taxes and shop at restaurants yay!
GotenRocko t1_j46fqfz wrote
the biggest opponents of this project are the other luxury apartment building owners since this will increase the supply of housing by a lot and lower prices for their rentals. I think that's a good thing.
dishwashersafe t1_j46mxzl wrote
Affordability is mostly a matter of supply and demand. Most new construction isn't affordable the same way most new cars aren't affordable, but there won't be used cars on the market if no one buys the new ones. This will lower rents across the city as rich people move here instead of outbidding you on what should be cheaper places. This explains it well.
MarlKarx-1818 t1_j471stw wrote
Does that assume the rich people moving there will come from Providence itself? And not Boston or other areas? I also think new construction could be affordable, we just need to put down the public money to make it so. I'm not necessarily against the tower tbf.
The_Sneakiest_Sneak t1_j47b30x wrote
There’s already plenty of rich people moving from Boston to Providence regardless. It’s better for them to be competing for new luxury apartments that most people can’t afford, than competing for the limited existing housing against the Rhode Islanders who are already struggling and getting outbid.
MarlKarx-1818 t1_j47b7zo wrote
That's a good point
dishwashersafe t1_j47pgln wrote
It assumes people tend to decide where they want to live, then figure out housing. A new luxury apartment complex doesn't influence rich people from Boston moving here anymore than an old affordable housing project in Worcester influences you to move there.
tru3no t1_j46ff1j wrote
F*ck affordable housing... lets rich people move in and spend money in town and pay the ridiculously high taxes we pay... build affordable housing outside of the downtown Providence.... Pawtucket, Central Falls, Johnston, Cranston all this can used the affordable housing you talk..
Bronnakus t1_j46gcpl wrote
“Probably” you don’t even know for sure 💀💀 literally arguing with a straw man here
degggendorf t1_j47x1e1 wrote
>probably getting away tax free for decades
Why get upset about a guess when you could take a second to learn the actual answer?
> The high-rise luxury apartment building planned for Dyer Street in Providence would get more than $54 million in property tax breaks over 20 years, according to newly released projections by the tax assessor.
>The Hope Point Tower, often referred to as the Fane tower, would still pay about $69 million in property taxes over the course of their tax stabilization agreement (TSA), compared to $123 million if there was no TSA.
PigpenMcKernan t1_j46dlr5 wrote
We need more housing in the state. This tower isn’t really the answer.
Besides that, Fane doesn’t have experience with a project of this scale and he is getting a sweetheart deal for some seriously prime property.
The City can and should look for better from elsewhere.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46pxif wrote
It's prime property but it's been available for over a decade and it's been almost seven years since the first proposal for 3 towers there. Have there been any serious suitors with funding and a development plan that have expressed interest for this land?
If it's that desirable, surely, there'd be other interest, right?
Kiyranti91 t1_j47a0oj wrote
That's a big part of my feelings on this - while I'd prefer the city find other investors and ways of making some big moves, it's been some 30 years since the last BIG move and the city is crawling forward. I love this city enough to want to see it have some progress without kicking this away and waiting (who knows how many more) years for another OFFER to come (years more away from that coming to fruition). They need to do something, and waiting several more years or decades for the perfect thing to fall in our lap just isn't practical.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j47dqlj wrote
Totally. I'd get not wanting to just jump at the first offer but the idea that this is some supremely desired parcel of land we're underselling? It just doesn't line up with what's happened.
I would hope that whatever purchase price for the land has at least adjusted to account for the real estate bubble market correction we've had since 2016 but I'm not going to pretend I know enough to say what is or isn't a good deal on that beyond two things
-
Right now, it's wasted space. Parks are cool. This is still wasted space. It was never meant to be permanent green space.
-
It sorta seems like there's only one interested buyer that isn't Brown University. I don't even know if they have interest, I'm just assuming they would and they're the one entity you can not do.
Dextrous456 t1_j4b3m08 wrote
Fane locked it and the adjacent parcel down just as things were starting to happen in the area. Since then, many things have been built and this parcel just sits there. Partially because of the fight about it, but also because it's not affordable. I predict we'll see Fane asking for another $25M from the state to help get it started. And costs will be cut in construction. It never was and still isn't feasible. If Fane had never proposed something so ludricrous, those two parcels would already be built out and we'd have some nice amenities for the park.
beta_vulgaris t1_j48cl8o wrote
Almost every single plot of 195 land has buildings in the planning stages or already completed. Several buildings were proposed, funded, and built on the 195 land since this building was first proposed. The developer has owned the parcel for years and has had the green light to build for years. He doesn’t have the funding. As building costs & interests rates rise, he just keeps dumbing down the design and pretending he will somehow be able to fund this next version. The developer is unreliable and the 195 commission should put the parcel back on the market so someone with a serious proposal can build there.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48ew54 wrote
>The developer has owned the parcel for years and has had the green light to build for years.
This sentence is great because it has two lies in it. Neither of those things are remotely true. Just pure unadulterated fiction.
beta_vulgaris t1_j48hq9v wrote
He’s had the option to buy the land since 2018, I can’t confirm he ever closed the deal, so fair point, maybe he doesn’t actually own it yet but the land has been set aside for him & only him to buy for years.
The last official hurdle at the RI Supreme Court was cleared last year to start construction
At this point, the ball is in his court. Build the building or let someone who is serious about building buy it.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j48kzke wrote
He's never had the option to buy until the project was fully approved. A legal battle over zoning was started like 5 years ago and took until last Summer to be resolved. It's worth noting that suit was financed by competing property owners.
By that point, yes, a fuckton has changed about the cost of literally everything, so they went for a redesign that still needs formal approval before the sale happens.
At no point has there ever been a point where construction could have started and there's really nothing to suggest funding the project is a hurdle beyond the developer not wanting to go above the 300ish million price tag.
Dextrous456 t1_j4b3r7c wrote
Which competing property owners? Do you have proof of that?
OrdersFriesEveryTime t1_j46fx9i wrote
Totally agree, have they put out RFPs and this was really the best they got?
PigpenMcKernan t1_j46gw2d wrote
I believe he came to them unsolicited. The just giving away for what will likely be an eyesore full of luxury condos is what bothers me.
Study after study shows that this type of project does nothing for the overall housing stock and sustainability. The developer can just pay extra fees or fines and not include the number of planned “affordable” units.
The state needs to focus on building housing for low and middle income families, that’s what is needed.
TheSausageFattener t1_j46kyuz wrote
I think the state did its usual of being so desperate for a quick boon they picked whoever schmoozed them enough. It reeks of something like a 38 Studios deal, where at least the studio delivered a good product but their finances were junk.
Has this tower secured financing? Because to me the shallow work list of the developer (they did a tower 10 years ago) combined with increasing interest rates would flag them as a high risk applicant for something of this scale in a city that doesnt yet have this scale.
As a city, Providence appeals a lot to people who work in Boston and want to save a bit on rent without going full suburb. A luxury tower doesn’t really mesh with that dynamic well.
Unusual_Mousse_7600 t1_j46tgjp wrote
Sorry to say,they are not interested in more housing for low and mids. They can't line their pockets with money from them. Big business always wins. Sorry to feel that way,but in all my years ,it's always a repeating theme.
acfun976 t1_j46nn0s wrote
People forget that when that 195 land became available, it was supposed to be a flood of business building. It's been a trickle and an underwhelming one at that. The main take away has been that even with prime city land up for grabs, few want to do business with providence or RI.
fishythepete t1_j48hlm7 wrote
Given the difficult in getting moving forward with the tower, I wonder why that is????
fishythepete t1_j46hsgr wrote
>We need more housing in the state. This tower Housing isn’t really the answer.
The absolute mental gymnastics NIMBYs will go through.
PigpenMcKernan t1_j46jz2i wrote
Please explain to me how these luxury units will help low and middle income families.
fishythepete t1_j46o58q wrote
Unless the increase in the quantity of housing creates an increase in the quantity demanded for housing (which would be exceedingly unusual), increasing the supply of a good reduces the the value, and thus the cost, of all goods on the market.
To break it down, someone moves here from Boston. They decide to live in the fane tower instead of outbidding a local on a nice place in fox point. As a result, the local is no longer outbidding locals in slightly less desirable (and pricy) neighborhoods. Etc…
There is literally zero legitimate controversy on the topic - increasing the quantity of housing available lowers the cost of housing. Period.
cheekiewalrus t1_j46pli3 wrote
This statement is pretty easily debunked. Boston has grown their housing downtown at an exponential rate in the past ten years and housing costs have continued to grow regardless of the supply.
Minimal amounts of research would have brought you to this conclusion but you’ve opted to do zero.
fishythepete t1_j474i58 wrote
>Minimal amounts of research would have brought you to this conclusion but you’ve opted to do zero.
Hmm…. Tell me again, how many new housing units built in Boston in the last 10 years, how many new residents, and how many new jobs.
Building the towers didn’t cause more people to move to Boston. It’s emergence as a biotech hub with many high paying jobs did. The new luxury construction has net reduced the impact of this growth in demand beyond what it otherwise would have.
People were moving to Boston for those jobs. The only question is how many locals would no longer be able to compete for housing as a result.
But hey - I’m the one who hasn’t done research. Sure.
ETA: Just to be exceedingly clear - the construction of the fane tower isn’t going to cause people to move the PVD. People making the decision to move to PVD (ie people who live in Boston but now only commute 1x / week post-COVID) do so because it offers something the alternative doesn’t (in the above example, lower CoL). The fane tower will reduce the impact some small number of those people would otherwise have on the housing market when they financially outcompete locals for existing housing.
PigpenMcKernan t1_j46r0ib wrote
Yeah having lived in Boston and watched all the towers go up and housing costs continue to rise, it’s simply not factual.
Housing is not the same as guns and butter. You can’t just build an expensive good and expect it to decrease overall demand on a sector if the damand is at a lower price.
There are examples closer to home too. How’s that fancy tower and community In Portsmouth doing? I think the tower might finally be at full occupancy.
Beezlegrunk t1_j4abqod wrote
>” having lived in Boston and watched all the towers go up and housing costs continue to rise, it’s simply not factual.”
You’re not allowed to cite empirical evidence — such as actual Boston / San Francisco / Seattle / Austin / etc housing prices amidst the luxury apartment booms in those cities — when discussing housing on this sub, because doing so interferes with an absolute requirement that the high-school level economic analysis be based entirely on orthodox economic theory, rather than real-world outcomes that don’t substantiate that dogma.
None of these clowns ever references the actual outcomes of their theories in major U.S. cities, just a bunch of textbook boilerplate about what should happen, based on a faith-based belief system that is routinely disproven by actual housing prices in actual places. The Catholic Church has nothing on the canon of orthodox economics …
When pressed, their answer to why the things that they say must inevitably happen (but never actually do) due to more expensive condos being built is, “Well, prices would have been even higher otherwise” — but they never explain why prices didn’t actually decrease, as they haughtily claimed must happen as more high-end apartments are constructed.
This myopic insistence on deliberately ignoring actual housing prices while expounding on the theoretical results of building more luxury condos — as if it hadn’t already been disproven in the decade leading up to the global financial crisis, and again more recently prior to the pandemic — is so cartoonish that it would be funny if it weren’t denialism of Trumpian proportions …
PigpenMcKernan t1_j4barzi wrote
Lots of ego and name calling around here. Long on feelings, short on facts.
This city is going to end up with a raw deal if they go with Fane. They will have to give him even more tax breaks. Then if he does get the tower open, it will probably end up like the tower in Portsmouth. It’ll open right before or in the middle of an housing slump or recession and sit mostly vacant for a long time.
degggendorf t1_j4l4lx7 wrote
> None of these clowns ever references the actual outcomes of their theories in major U.S. cities
Here you go, let me know if you have any questions: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affordable-housing-debate/
Or if you want to skip the summary with a host of sources linked to illustrate, here's one particular study anchored in actual data to read:
Beezlegrunk t1_j4lf29j wrote
>Here you go, let me know if you have any questions: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affordable-housing-debate/
That article offers conflicting “yes” and “no” answers …
The ultimate test or verification of whether building expensive housing makes all housing cheaper is whether places that did the former experienced the latter.
Having lived in multiple cities that did the former — and read about rising housing prices in other ones that did so as well — I have yet to see the latter.
Can you point to a city where predominantly expensive housing was built but housing at all price points got cheaper?
Even expensive housing doesn’t get significantly cheaper when more of it gets built — it only really goes down when there’s a complete market collapse, like the 2008 financial crisis, and even then it doesn’t drop enough to make it affordable, but just to correct the last inflationary increments of the speculative bubble that led to the collapse itself.
If high-priced housing itself doesn’t get that much cheaper due to more high-priced housing being built, how would lower-priced housing get significantly cheaper from more high-priced housing (but no more low-priced housing) being built?
The claims about housing “migration chains” don’t make empirical sense, because the housing that people are supposedly migrating up to is still more expensive than the housing they’re in.
Wealthy people moving into even more expensive housing doesn’t suddenly make their old housing more affordable to people who couldn’t afford it before, because prices don’t actually go down significantly, if at all.
They built a lot of expensive housing in San Francisco in the last 20 years, and lower-priced housing didn’t get cheaper, it went up (until the pandemic).
Even now housing is still too expensive for most people to move there, and consumes too much of the incomes of people who already do — it’s still not affordable, and building more expensive housing won’t change that.
degggendorf t1_j4lhj59 wrote
> The claims about housing “migration chains” don’t make empirical sense, because the housing that people are supposedly migrating up to is still more expensive than the housing they’re in.
You're misunderstanding the concept. One person upgrades to a more expensive place by choice, which then vacates their current, cheaper place for someone else.
> Can you point to a city where predominantly expensive housing was built but housing at all price points got cheaper?
I just did with the links in my previous comment that you evidently didn't read and/or understand.
>They built a lot of expensive housing in San Francisco in the last 20 years, and lower-priced housing didn’t get cheaper, it went up (until the pandemic).
Yep, classic supply and demand.
2011: 375,000 housing units; 816,000 people
2019: 398,000 housing units; 879,000 people
63,000 more people competing for just 23,000 new housing units. Demand growth outstrips supply growth, prices go up. If it was 63,000 more people and 0 new housing units, prices would be even higher.
>Even now housing is still too expensive for most people to move there, and consumes too much of the incomes of people who already do — it’s still not “affordable” and building more expensive housing won’t change that.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems plainly illogical to me, but maybe I am misunderstanding some part of your thought process. What do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?
Beezlegrunk t1_j4lntzv wrote
>”Classic supply and demand”
You mean, classic THEORY — i.e., “Here’s a story we can make up whereby something might happen, under specific abstract conditions that don’t exist, and / or that deliberately ignores the historical record of has actually happened in the real world, rather than a theoretical one”
Your refuge from any challenge is to cite theory. If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven. If building expensive housing lowers all housing prices, you should be able to point to multiple examples of that immutable effect, yet you never do.
The study you cited was self-contradictory, but you shouldn’t need an academic study to prove your claim — it should be empirical and obvious, not hidden or obscure. Housing should be ever-more affordable, belying the thousands of media stories and Reddit posts chronicling soaring housing costs and an absence of affordability …
degggendorf t1_j4lpgdl wrote
Ooops, you forgot to answer the question I asked! That would look an awful lot like deflection to someone reading your comment.
So let's try again...what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?
> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven.
I would like to once again ask you to read my links. I already did what you're requesting. Or are you actively trying to avoid learning, because you value retaining your preconceived notions over anything real?
Let me coax you into learning with this excerpt from here:
> To be clear, this debate is not about whether new housing can reduce housing prices overall. At this point, that idea isn’t really in doubt. There’s good reason to believe that in regions with high housing demand, building more housing can help keep the prices of existing housing down. In their Supply Skepticism paper from 2018, Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Katherine O’Regan offer an excellent introduction to the broader question of how market-rate development affects affordability. Citing numerous individual studies and reviews of dozens more, they conclude that “the preponderance of the evidence shows that restricting supply increases housing prices and that adding supply would help to make housing more affordable.”
which references this study, that has all the real-world data you're looking for.
Beezlegrunk t1_j4muu3m wrote
>Ooops, you forgot to answer the question I asked! That would look an awful lot like deflection to someone reading your comment.
>
>So let's try again...what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow?
There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population. Whether they could afford them is not clear, since adding additional apartments in San Francisco has so far not lowered rents. I've stated that dozens of times, but if you keep asking, maybe the answer will change ...
> I already did what you're requesting.
No, you haven't — you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain. What you cannot possibly do is actually state the name of a city where the construction of high-price housing has reduced the cost of lower-price housing.
You can't do it, because there are none. As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there. But since you're certain that your theories on high-price housing are valid, why is it so hard to find even one concrete example ...?
degggendorf t1_j4mx436 wrote
> There'd be an apartment for every man, woman, child, and many pets in San Francisco, given the size of its population.
Right, we agree so far.
> Whether they could afford them is not clear
Why isn't it clear? What are the possibilities?
To me, the owner will have a bunch of buildings that are costing them money sitting empty. They list them for $4,000/month. No one rents. $3,000/month. No one rents. They try to sell the building, but no one wants to buy a vacant apartment building. $1,500/month and people become interested.
That is supply reducing pricing.
If you don't think or aren't sure pricing will get lower, what do you think will happen instead? The owners just keep them listed for $4,000/month with 0 tenants, and just lose money into bankruptcy?
> you've cited research papers on how zoning regulations affect the number of housing units that get built in certain
If you think that's the topic you might be literally illiterate. Or, more likely, you're just misrepresenting it because in your imagination you think it makes it seem like your unwillingness to learn is you winning an argument.
> As soon as you cite an actual city, we can discuss what the effects of luxury housing have been there.
Against my better judgment, I will do some reading for you and pull out a few of the cities referenced in the paper: Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis.
degggendorf t1_j4lr6br wrote
> If you’re so certain that those theories are true, point to the actual U.S. cities that you know they have been proven
Ooo ooo, remember when you said this? "Instead of attempting to deflect attention from your statements by demanding that other people offer theirs, you should be able to respond to critiques of your views. If you’re uncomfortable doing so, that’s probably an indication that your comments were shallow, poorly reasoned, and / or ill-informed."
I am starting to think that I should create a whole GrunkCriticizesGrunk subreddit...
Beezlegrunk t1_j4msf12 wrote
I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper — that's my refutation of your high school textbook theory. What you haven't done is the opposite: Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.
The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?" or in responding to someone's critique entirely with questions, or with theories of what should happen, while conveniently ignoring what actually has happened and can be substantiated.
If you need further examples of cities that haven't "luxuried" their way out of an affordable housing crisis, I've got plenty of them — including in Providence itself. What you don't have is examples to the contrary.
degggendorf t1_j4mvnwb wrote
> I've offered you examples of cities that actually built a lot of luxury housing, and yet other housing there didn't get cheaper
I showed you how population growth outstripped housing growth, and why prices going up still fit my increased demand=higher prices model.
I also provided many academic resources that agree with what I'm saying.
So far, you can't even explain what you think is happening, let alone provide any corroborating evidence. I don't know what else to do to get you to explain your own logic. I asked multiple times, and provided a quote of yourself criticizing the exact behavior you're partaking in now.
> The problem isn't in asking specific questions, it's in asking vague deflective questions like, "What's your solution?"
Is it poor reading comprehension, or a failing memory that is causing you to misquote what I asked? To ask you for the third time, what do you think would happen if a million new apartments opened up in San Francisco tomorrow? I am crossing my fingers hoping that you'll actually attempt to explain what you think the housing market will do this time. Third time's the charm...?
>including in Providence itself.
Providence is in the same situation as San Francisco. Supply has dropped in relation to demand, so prices are higher.
2011: 72,600 housing units; 178,000 people
2020: 74,800 housing units; 190,000 people
That's 2,200 new units, and 12,000 new people. More demand, higher prices.
Were you just straight up making stuff up and hoping I wouldn't check, or do you really think that population has nothing to do with housing pricing?
> Give examples where your theory actually worked as claimed.
I gave you studies with data tables, which you immediately demonstrated your unwillingness and/or inability to read and/or understand. You failing to read the thing you asked for is no longer my problem. You are willingly choosing ignorance.
[deleted] t1_j4eab4i wrote
[deleted]
General_Johnny_Rico t1_j4717gr wrote
And your assertion is that if they didn’t grow their housing the costs would not have risen more than they did? And the research you have to support that?
I guess that’s a no on the research, eh?
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j4g4f2c wrote
Considering the paltry number of units, and their ~0% effect on average citywide housing prices, if the overriding concern is more affordable housing, the bottom line question should be: does Fane’s proposal prevent affordable housing being built?
And the answer is, no. The real estate itself is too valuable (location and eventually taxed by Providence at their high valuation/rates) to build housing that is less than market rate. It’s not Fane driving that equation (it’s us).
——-
We do all agree we want fewer unhoused people, and more affordable housing so we should be looking for solutions.
And noted here, it’s difficult to prove any particular hypothesis on housing costs with the number of variables (salaries, populations, construction costs, taxes, incomes per unit propensity, square footage expectations, economy, inflation, etc) and the inability to identify a control to measure against. But, there are some glimmers.
https://streets.mn/2020/06/28/new-housing-lowers-rents-in-minneapolis-st-paul-not-so-much/
quinntronix OP t1_j46e7wb wrote
This will not be affordable housing. If the city just maintains the park it could open a seasonal outdoor concert venue and generate more income. The trickle down effect for our economy isn’t as beneficial as a tax free construction project for a luxury condo building.
cheekiewalrus t1_j46pwfe wrote
The last thing Providence needs is a seasonal outdoor concert venue.
CocaineSlippers t1_j46isur wrote
Hit us with the analysis on that, ill standby
degggendorf t1_j47z3t2 wrote
>a seasonal outdoor concert venue and generate more income
How do you figure that? Concert ticket sales would need to be $3.5m per year to match the tax revenue. How much would a ticket to a small park concert cost, $20 tops? So we would need 175,000 attendees to break even, even if we ignore all the costs of building and maintaining a concert venue. We're not regularly filling our existing venues, and another one won't really induce more demand will it?
So a concert venue will 1.) Make the city less money, and 2.) Complete will existing arts in the city.
Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
[deleted] t1_j46de5k wrote
[removed]
lagoongassoon t1_j46eu59 wrote
I'd be happy to have work in Providence instead of exclusively Boston for a change, hope it goes through
foolproofphilosophy t1_j46sg00 wrote
Is this development purely residential? From what I’ve seen RI should also be focusing on commercial space. As MA real estate gets more ridiculous people are moving farther and farther from the city. From my armchair it seems like RI is in a great position to attract workers from MA but is there office space for them to occupy?
mdurg68 t1_j476z8f wrote
There is a TON of vacant office space downtown. It’s pretty sad. Our bldg is 80% vacant.
foolproofphilosophy t1_j48tbep wrote
Providence sucks to drive through. I think that there will be more of what Fidelity did in Smithfield and what Citizens did in Johnston. Moving a short distance outside of Providence means a reasonable commute for a large swath of southern MA. Employers need an applicant pool. I’m still new to RI but those are my impressions.
Wide_Television_7074 t1_j4974hh wrote
advocating for greenfield developments eh? how 1986 of you!
kamikazekenny420 t1_j469v22 wrote
So another tall building that will sit empty like the other one? Rad!
[deleted] t1_j46bcu3 wrote
[removed]
JackHillTop t1_j46g5f9 wrote
Where is the second tower going to go? I want Providence to go FULL Middle Earth.
quinntronix OP t1_j46bdp4 wrote
Picture a luxury condo building at least 2x the size of all the rest, it will dominate all views of the city and eat up sorely needed public park space. This is a terrible thing for the city.
gusterfell t1_j46f0dq wrote
The lot it's on has always been zoned for development. It is adjacent to the park but not legally part of it. If Fane doesn't get built there, something else will.
As for the views, they could've said the same about the Superman building when it was built, and the Turk's Head before that. It's a valid reason to make sure the design is as aesthetically sound as possible, but not to kill the project outright.
degggendorf t1_j46gdet wrote
I still don't know enough about this to have an opinion. Why shouldn't it happen? The need for it seems clear, but evidently a bunch of people hate it and I'm not really sure why.
Proof-Variation7005 t1_j46hx1s wrote
I think the arguments against it come down to generic opposition to any sort of tax breaks to encourage development and the location. That and some generic opposition because it won't be affordable units, ergo it must not help
Prior to the redesign, the building was uglier too. So there's probably a lingering view on that.
khais t1_j46jqx7 wrote
The move to remote work for many has lead people to spread out from HCOL areas to Mid and Lower COL. There's already people with money coming into RI from Boston, New York, and elsewhere competing for limited housing stock. Maybe this tower will serve as a magnet for those with the dough and allow others to more easily find places to rent. Idk, I haven't seen the data. But I'm not about to oppose it for vague NIMBYist reasons.
degggendorf t1_j46kslf wrote
Thank you
WhatNameDidIUseAgain t1_j46va2f wrote
Way too out of place. I strongly dislike it and I hope it doesn’t go through, at least make it fit the other building aesthetic
gusterfell t1_j47updn wrote
It's not really out of place though. It's four blocks from the current tallest building in the state. The renderings don't do it any favors though by having the rest of the skyline look tiny and washed out in the background. They make the Fane tower look like it'sa towering behemoth halfway to Cranston. In reality, it's only going to be 20% taller than the Superman Building, and only twice as far from it as the Hospital Trust tower.
WhatNameDidIUseAgain t1_j47zfpo wrote
I just don’t think it fits the vibe of the area, it looks too modern and would stick out like a sore thumb.
fishythepete t1_j48im3b wrote
You cannot develop an aesthetic successfully mixing old and new if you never build anything new.
Unusual_Mousse_7600 t1_j46uj7n wrote
I would be interested to see how many people on here are actually Providence residents.
theoldsoulbrother t1_j49kamy wrote
The design is trash and the Fanes are the walking dead. Look at them.
brick1972 t1_j46j062 wrote
If you build your incentive system around garbage projects like this you will only end up with garbage. The 195 committee and the state can both get fucked for running roughshod over the city's provenance here.
I am not against projects. I am against this specific one. One problem in this forum is that anyone who says no to this piece of ugly tribute to ego bullshit tower is that we are "anti development" but that's a bunch of shit. There are plenty of better developments and better use for this space that integrates the neighborhood and there are better sites in the city for a project of this scale.
If your attitude is "we have to take what we can get" you end up with a lot of shit. I know a lot of people weren't aware of things during the last boom cycle but a bunch of projects that had high hopes and destroyed city blocks went basically nowhere and left a patchwork of useless parking lots that we are still struggling to infill 15 years later. Our enforcement is typically lagging. There is very little stopping Fane from digging a hole in the ground the saying "oops market conditions" and we are left with a hole in the ground or more surface parking.
subtle_likeatrex t1_j477sb2 wrote
👏👏👏
TheSausageFattener t1_j46ny44 wrote
Best case for this it becomes like Carnegie Tower in Portsmouth. Built and opened right before a major housing slump, high vacancy rates, takes a decade to start attracting a decent volume of tenants mostly seeking speculative ownership, no long term impact or adjustment to state/local development trajectory.
fishythepete t1_j48jqt3 wrote
>If your attitude is "we have to take what we can get" you end up with a lot of shit.
And if your attitude is “our way or nothing at all” you get Providence. The difference is that reasonable people can disagree on what’s shit, but nothing is the same to everyone.
brick1972 t1_j4cqts1 wrote
This project is egregious. Noone cares that it is aesthetically shit. The recommendations from all of the people who actually know planning and development is to follow the recommendations on height and development scope on these parcels. As many in this thread of noted, throw this thing on a block that is appropriate for scale and noone would be that upset. The architecture is also shit but that's not what people are arguing about. What we care about is whether this development makes sense. But you and I have had this out before on this very subject so why waste my time.
Iamognara t1_j473h2a wrote
I think it’s great for the city
sandwichtown t1_j49drr0 wrote
Still ugly…
infestans t1_j46mxdz wrote
My take is sure why the hell not?
The tax breaks are bullshit but we're up to our eyeballs in that bullshit, blocking this to fight tax breaks is using a tiki drink umbrella to stop the rain
Beezlegrunk t1_j4a7xcf wrote
Now apply that logic to crime or pollution …
infestans t1_j4c7rbs wrote
Sure,
Spot enforcement makes no difference when the fundamental problem is not just systemic but is actually the status quo.
Whack -a-mole won't address a damn thing when the powers that be are just going to turn around and give the exact same "deal" to someone else. Every single development apparently needs (and gets) a variance and a tax break, so clearly the tax and code systems are fucked (which they are). If every building needs a sweetheart deal then it's hardly reasonable to fault them for getting one. But it's very reasonable to fault the city and the state for setting up a system where nothing is built by right and everything is at the personal digression of the mayor. That's the fucking problem
therealDrA t1_j470bez wrote
Yes! Build it already!
[deleted] t1_j46xelp wrote
[deleted]
subtle_likeatrex t1_j477mtk wrote
Absolutely terrible idea. This is not the solution. This is about profiting under the guise of a solution.
Consistent_Syrup_235 t1_j48nn43 wrote
1985 called and they want their tower back
[deleted] t1_j49a120 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j4a0p74 wrote
[deleted]
OrdersFriesEveryTime t1_j46fshx wrote
Not opposed to more housing, and completely agree that they should be building up and not out. It sucks that we’ll lose the park, but this is a city.
That said, how much are these apartments going to rent for? Not expecting Section 8 but if they cut into a middle class single or more household income by more than 30% (relative to unit size) then they’re useless. Obviously it’s going to be something like starting at one bedroom for 2500 a month.
The building is fucking ugly and (still) looks like an oscillating fan.
[deleted] t1_j46h6wj wrote
[deleted]
Shorty-hunter t1_j46jo6r wrote
How much are we paying for it?
How much income will it generate?
Are there any contractual stipulations involved which would offer a massive payout (paid by ri taxpayers) to developers and/or organizers if the project fails for an unforseen reason?
PS: I lol'd at the photoshop job making the canal look like clear water.
lugo2 t1_j46k603 wrote
I don't have an opinion on the design either way, and we definitely do need more housing but, I just wish it was going on one of the nearby parking lots or something. I really like that park, it's one of the few bits of big open green space in downtown, and a lot of people hang out down there in the warmer months. For the record, I don't really care about the sun flowers getting torn up to become apartments because nobody really used that green space for anything.
askme_if_im_a_chair t1_j46m10u wrote
I like the design, if it'll bring more money to the city and state then let's go for it. I'm getting tired of driving to Massachusetts to make a decent wage
Dextrous456 t1_j4b4c68 wrote
How is this going to help you make a decent wage?
askme_if_im_a_chair t1_j4bbki9 wrote
Money attracts money
Beezlegrunk t1_j4a7yez wrote
>”I'm getting tired of driving to Massachusetts to make a decent wage”
So move there …
askme_if_im_a_chair t1_j4a80ow wrote
Too expensive
Vsercit-2020-awake t1_j46osy9 wrote
Will this be luxury or affordable?
quinntronix OP t1_j46ryqm wrote
Luxury
brick1972 t1_j47dlzl wrote
As much as people like me might parrot talking points of organizations like PPS it is amazing to me that people are putting forward the idea that this makes any difference to the housing supply issues which affect low income people far more than luxury buyers. This is a building trades talking point, not reality. If you want to dent the housing crisis then you can do it with appropriate scale housing as easily as you can with expensive towers. Our real estate is not at a premium multiple that towers are needed.
I like towers and skyline too. I was a heavy proponent of the Westin condos and waterplace etc. But stop trying to justify this junky piece of crap with "we need housing". It's a straw man for this project and worse plays the idiotic game of taking a genuinely important issue and trivializing it to justify a bad project.
At least have the honesty to say "I work in the trades and just want the job" or "I like seeing steel rising no matter what it is" or "I actually never go to and/or hate Providence but think I know better than Providence residents what is good for them."
overthehillhat t1_j47oqmp wrote
Rhody05 t1_j47p8np wrote
Perfect find.
overthehillhat t1_j48euf7 wrote
But They didn't plan for future electrical and other mechanical demand so it has issues now - -
but useful enuf for nearly 100 years - -
UNNOMBREPUNTO t1_j47y344 wrote
Hold up. I didn’t know about this
dexbasedpaladin t1_j47zxzc wrote
Luxury housing 100 yards from a power plant...
JhinandJuice t1_j4844fg wrote
Screw it, slap it up
Wayland_Angel t1_j48myhn wrote
We need housing. All kinds of housing. Build this now.
youjustlostthegameee t1_j48nuqj wrote
More housing is good. And those who are going to complain about but "this luxury housing and this is not going to get Rhode Islanders in". Oh yeah? Well now the Superman building apartments have to compete with this. Sorry but cry is free.
Wide_Television_7074 t1_j498213 wrote
An extra 2,000 people living downtown would provide critical mass for the neighborhood and make it more sustainable. These next handful of projects are so important. Build it!
FrequentAnnual1262 t1_j49enn7 wrote
RI skyline has been stagnant for a while, time to breathe some new life into the city and make it vibrant again. I like this project on many levels.
RepairIllustrious901 t1_j4ije0l wrote
Let him build it already!
AhChingados t1_j46lbny wrote
I think that by now, we should all be aware that the I-195 commission is just a bunch of crooks giving valuable property away to their rich friends. (Either that or they are shit business people, either way we got fucked)
This was supposed to be green space https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/07/21/taxpayer-financed-providence-pavilion-downtown-restaurant-owners-angry-threat-business/10085804002/
The land for trader Joes got sold at $100,000
Crooks fighting over who is going to do the crookery http://www.gcpvd.org/2018/10/03/wpri-senate-president-wants-to-strip-providence-of-zoning-oversight-on-195-land/
possiblecoin t1_j46zmbg wrote
I loved the original design, but the update is pretty boring.
Easywind42 t1_j46zru0 wrote
Looks like a tower
Pvdsuccess t1_j47143o wrote
Go for it.
Rhody05 t1_j47mcg3 wrote
Build it- Provides Housing, parking, dining/entertainment. Its far enough from the river and provides great programming/security for the adjacent park. The views from this location/height would be the best around. Its location is a few blocks from the financial district and doesn't impose on the east side or jewelry district. It will not infringe on any sort of historical element of the city and is situated next to existing developments/infrastructure. I don't see any issue with the height as it's in scale with other high-rise buildings, literally blocks away. Its style is welcomed in my opinion as the skyline is already quite diverse with material/style and all represent a certain time in history. Over time, those who oppose will welcome it, especially once they view it in person as I believe it will be impressive. The main arguments are immaterial (in my opinion).
therealDrA t1_j4900fb wrote
Great arguments! Build it already!!
Vertchewal t1_j49vs7y wrote
Whatever legitimizes Providence has a big city is welcomed.
waninggib t1_j46h4di wrote
Providence could use the tax dollars being allocated for this for so much more, like actually building affordable housing. We need to stop allowing luxury developers to change the entire fabric of our cities because of their own personal desire for growth and power.
st0aks t1_j46l3wg wrote
where exactly is this proposed to be?
bpear t1_j49ywiy wrote
Near the cic building in Providence. By the pedestrian bridge
Unusual_Mousse_7600 t1_j46q8yt wrote
Well obviously the polis in this state are not really interested in working for the people. Then I say let them keep it up that end and play their games with each other up there.
Glad-Appointment-710 t1_j46xzob wrote
Poor people need to come together and stop these swindlers
Kraft-cheese-enjoyer t1_j46m4tv wrote
Big tower good
quinntronix OP t1_j468riv wrote
Send an email by 5p today to share your thoughts about the proposed 550ft tower. If allowed the tower will overshadow the city and ruin the best new park in the city too. Let your voice be heard. The meeting is Wed the 18th second floor of 225 Dyer St. at 5p. Be ready to show up, protest and let Fane and the 195 commission know we don’t want that tower! Email RIHPHC at hphc.info@preservation.Ri.gov
[deleted] t1_j46bh7h wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j46bvzi wrote
[removed]
NewspaperEconomy5473 t1_j47ompw wrote
The tower will absolutely not “overshadow” the city, that’s exaggerated fear-mongering BS.
Skyscrapers belong in cities. If you don’t like urban development, then you don’t belong in an urban area. Full stop.
Potterheadsuniteyt t1_j482a9a wrote
Does Rhode Island actually exist or are y’all just a really big city.
Impossible-Heart-540 t1_j46jf1b wrote
We need more housing supply, luxury or otherwise, a bigger tax base, and more construction jobs are good.
But it’s a hell of a lot nicer to walk around DC or Paris with their height/zoning restrictions than it is Houston - and we paid planners to advise us of this obvious fact, we adopted those guidelines before we even removed the highway, then made all developers (so far) abide by them.
Moreover, its present location is going to be surrounded by the new RIPTA hub, and the Brown Medical school-hardly a desirable set up for luxury condos.
The wise answer which NO ONE WILL DO - is trade this parcel for the one behind Turks Head, or the parking lot at Weybosset and Union, or Westminster and Snow (you know, where all the high rises, restaurants and other urban amenities already exist) and have him build it there.🤷🏼♂️